The %-ratings I've written are nothing more than a method of comparision to see how far games are apart in terms of fun to me. Please don't post here telling me to go to hell because game XY deserve a 95% or a 50%. It's all just to get your attention :P

Unranked - StarCraft II: Heart of the Swarm
I can't really rank this game because of it's powerful editor and the long hours I'm going to spend making campaign maps. So on the one hand I know I am going to spend much more time on it than any other game I played in 2013, on the other hand it's more of a tool to create my own fun. That being said I thought the campaign was an improvement over the campaign in Wings of Liberty. The story was told better, more personal, with fewer filler missions. Controlling Kerrigan was a lot of fun and evolving the Zerg was also nice. the missions themselves had a lot of variations, ranging from classic-base building to Diablo-like Action RPG. I do wish they had included more missions and made some of the others longer. There were too many timed missions. For Legacy of the Void I hope Blizzard focuses even more on the story and gives us an awesome conclusion to the StarCraft 2 games. Oh, and please add co-op campaign support to Battle.net.

22 - Medal of Honor - 70%
It wasn't particularly bad, but after so many years of playing Modern Warfare clones, gameplay like this is getting old. The only part I remember is where you drive your snowmobile and clear out the villages silently.

21 - Amnesia - A Machine for Pigs - 72%
I was afraid developer The Chinese Room, who developed the non-gameplay game Dear Esther, would ruin the franchise for me, and to some extend they succeeded. They removed way too many gameplay elements and made the game too short (on the other hand, not a bad thing). At least the setting was nice.

20 - Dead Space 3 - 73%
The first hal an hour was bad, really bad. Simple third-person shooting with no horror and bad graphics. But once you get into space the game truly feels like a Dead Space game. And then you land on the planet... In Dead Space 1 enemies would appear rarely and each one would send a chill down my spine. Dead Space 2 had more but it still managed to creep me out sometimes. Dead Space 3 is just dreadful. You get into a room and you know instantly that monters are going to appear out of every corner, and if that wasn't enough they don't just stop after the first wave. They come and come and come. The hero moves way too slow for this sort of gameplay. Really frustrating. All in all the most dissapointing game of the year.

19 - Crysis 3 - 73%
The game has the best graphics, and the nano-suit makes it stand out from other first person shooters. Unfortunately it lacks in all other aspects. The presentation doesn't seem to be as breathtaking as in Crysis 2, mostly because I miss that great main menu theme by Hans Zimmer. The level design was too linear for a feature like the nano suit. Very often I was just running through the level, so the game was about 4 hours long for me. I often run in Crysis 2 but even that game had much more playtime. I don't remember much about the storyline, so I guess that wasn't very good either. It's a tech demo, nothing more.

18 - Battlefield 3 - 74%
For some it's just a Call of Duty clone, and for me to a large extend that is true. The scripted events of BF 3 are not as impressive as in CoD, and the storyline is pretty boring. In my opinion it does everything CoD does, but with better graphics and more variation in gameplay thanks all the types of vehicles you can control. Its also nice that you can switch your types of weapon at every ammo cache you find.

17 - Battlefield 4 - 76%
Not much I can add here. It's like Battlefield 3 but it has improved every aspect a little bit. Even the story seems to be a little better.

16 - Company of Heroes: Opposing Fronts & Tales of Valor 77%
I played the original Company of Heroes back in 2006, but never had gotten around to play the add-ons. CoH had impressive visuals that looked like a first-person-shooter in the cinematic sequences. The gameplay was fast-paced, action-orientedbut also very tactical because you only controlled a few squads and positioning was a very important aspect of the game. I wanted to get into the vibe before the CoH2 release so I played the add-ons for CoH1. It lacked much of the drama of the original game and the missions were often way too strict, limiting you to only sepcific types of units. I was a bit underwhelmed. The more I progressed in the campaigns the more restricted I felt.

15 - A New Beginning - 80%
It's a point and click adventure about global warming. It was really weird at first. The game was released in 2010 but it looks more like a 2000 game because the resolution size is only 1024x768, so you get black edges on your screen. The animations are really stiff and the voice acting seemed robotic at first. But the setting and the story was, what kept me going. It's about a group of time travellers, who, in order to prevent a climate catastrophe that affects them in their time, travel to our present time. The game is played from two perspectives and has really lovavable characters. The story progresses really well and the hand-painted environments look really good once you got used to the oldschool feeling. Also the puzzles were fun and the controls good. It took me about 10 hours to finish.

14 - Outlast - 81%
The new Amnesia. The first night I played it it was only to try it out for a couple of minutes. I got to the first jump scare that scared the hell out of me and I immediately took a break. I had nightmares about the game that night. It's not as scary as the first Amnesia, because the jumps scares become less and less effective and the tension just isn't there anymore towards the end. Also the gameplay doesn't flow well. Whether I was running or hiding, it is all very calculated. I could only run into a specific direction or hide inside/underneath certain objects. If I hid the enemy AI would randomly check the hiding places, if they found me I would run to the next spot and hide, if they didn't and went away I was clear to continue to the next area. It didn't feel natural. The exception was when I was just walking around with the camera, recording stuff, searching rooms and so on. the graphics were not outstanding but really, really good. The textures are sharp, the lightning is excellent (best night-vision ever) and the enviromental details are astounding. The game is full of creepy, memorable characters. I don't want to spoil the story, but I think it could have been presented better; towards the end it feels a little unreal.

13 - Hitman Absolution - 81%
I loved the Hitman games because it was a playfield for creativity. Even more so than one of my all-time favourites Thief. Hitman games always had large levels with open environments and they let you choose how to approach a situation. Gun-blazing or stealthy. It was your choice. Hitman Absolution still offered a lot of variety but a lot of it was sacrifized because the level design was much more linear than in the old games. It seems as if technical limitations forced the developers to split each level into smaller sections, forcing a linear progression. You take out a target in one area, and no matter how you did it, stealth or otherwise, when you move to the next area, people forgot about you. At least the controls and the presentation were the best any Hitman game has had so far. And the gameplay is still very good. It's fun to explore your options, even if they seem more limited than in the old games.

12 - FarCry 3: Blood Dragon - 83%
FarCry 3 was nice. The most fun I had was liberating camps, hiding in the tall grass, using my crossbow to out enemies silently. But Blood Dragon was really frusstrating to the point I was about to uninstall it. The enemies were always noticing me, and I was wondering why. Then it dawned on me: In FC3 the camps didn't have any walls and I had gotten used to shooting people from far away. In Blood Dragon that just couldn't work because every camp had walls. I used my sniper but I guess it was too loud so everybody started shooting at me. Only after some time I figured out how to sneak into a camp and take out enemies from within it. Then the game started becoming really awesome. The gameplay was fun but the best thing about it were all the 80s action-flick references, cheesy one-liners and situation. I laughed so hard at the final mission.

11 - StarCraft I Remake: Mass Recall - 84%
I don't usually put Mods in this list, but Mass Recall remade one of my favourite games, and it did really well. It's basically what you would expect: A faithful recreation of the original StarCraft and Broodwar in the StarCraft 2 engine, with improved controls and graphics. They added all the sound files, music and recreated all the models and spells from SC1/BW that weren't present in SC2. Even the briefing rooms. But it's not a 100% replica. They took the liberty to add some of the favourite BW units to the SC1 campaign, like the Medic. They took advanted of the 3D engine to expand the ingame cinematics, so you no longer just have people standing around and reading text. The only thing missing were the prerendered cutscenes, but they did unclude snapshots of those and added the dialogue. I wonder if there were technical limitations or they just didn't get around to doing it. Some of the maps still need more polishing in terms of bugfixing, AI behaviour or terrain art, but other than that I am satisfied, and whenever I plan onreplaying the SC1/BW campaigns, I prefer to do it with this remake.

10 - Bioshock Infinite - 85%
This is one of those games where I just couldn't figure out why people like it so much. I liked System Shock 2, Bioshock 1 and Bioshock 2 a lot. I liked the dark, tragic atmosphere and the gameplay felt solid with al the different types of weapons and magic skills. When I first started Bioshock Infinite I was really motivated to get into the world. I stood in front of every wallpaper and statue, marvelled at the art design and fell in love with the clouds and the idea that I am way up above the ground. But somewhere along the stupid combat and the unclear story the game lost me. Every fight felt like a chore and I was happy when I didn't have to fight. Those twins that appear from time to time, and the different dimensions I found myself it made the story very hard to follow. Especially if you took a break for a couple of weeks like I did. And then came the ending. This is (not probably, but definitely) the best ending I have ever witnessed in a video game. I can't spoil anything here, but the things I saw, the things the game was trying to tell me. It was all so much. So complex. So good. It made me want to replay it and pay much more attention to all the things that are being said and done.

9 - The Witcher 2: Assassins of Kings - 86%
Witcher 1 was good because it had a dark and gritty atmosphere. the setting was dark fantasy and felt very european, cold, full of grim people who like to swear a lot. What I didn't like so much was the pacing in the quest design and the combat system. Quests felt slow because you always had a number of them but you never knew exactly which one to approach and how to complete it exactly. Witcher 2 improved on that a bit with clearer objectives and more help with a minimap and so on. The combat system improved a lot. It is much faster and at the same time more strategical because there are more options. It's also nice to look at, stunning at times. I'm really looking forward to the conclusion of the series with Witcher 3. Hopefully this year.

8 - Assassin's Creed 3 - 87%
I don't understand some people who are against the annual releases of the Assassin's Creed series. The games always come up with a new setting, often completely different characters, a lot of play time, and a lot of things to do. I like the continuation of Desmond's story and how everything is connected. I like how they mix history and fiction, although sometimes it gets hard to follow. I like the gameplay with combat and assassinations, even though the main mission are often way too linear. So the question is not if AC3 is a good game, the question is how it is compared the the previous games. AC3 excels at its setting and (hi)storytelling. The environments were detailed and the game takes you through the most important events of the American Revolutionary War. Playing a native American was also nice. The combat system was improved, but sadly most mission depended too much on it. The stealth aspect felt a bit neglected.

7 - The Swapper - 88%
The Swapper is and independent game where you control an astronaut in a 2D environment and solve puzzles. You can create up to four clones of your cahracter on any point of the map, as the line of sight isn't broken by the terrain, objets or special types of lights. You can take control of any clone if you have a line of sight. These clones move exactly as you move. When you go left, they go left. When you jump, they jump. So th trick is to use the environment to manipulate their movement to activate floor switches or levers. Sometimes you have to switch bodies quick enough and sacrifice one or more. It's mind-boggling but as long as don't give up you will always find a solution and feel satisfied when solving a problem. The game uses 2.5D for to create depth perception. The environments are beatifully crafted. I heard a lot of them were made with clay which was then digitalized into the game. They look amazing and fit perfectly into the alien atmosphere and feeling of claustrophobia.

6 - Tomb Raider - 88%
I played the very first Tomb Raider in 1996 but never finished it because it was too hard for me. I don't think I ever managed to get past the second level or so. Same with Tomb Raider 2. Afterwards I hadn't played a Tomb Raider game until the reboot Tomb Raider: Legend ten years later. So I guess I missed all the bullshit sequels. It was great to see they the series had maintained it sense of exploration and acrobatics and pairing these with much smoother controls. When the 2011-reboot was announced I was worried that it would contain too many gun fights and be way too linear. To some extent I was right. Tomb Raider 2011 can get a bit frustrating when killing dozens of enemies in just a few minutes. The controls don't feel like they were made for this much action.The climbing passages were also too simple for my taste. In the previous games you had to think about your next move, because one wrong move could mean your demise. It was exciting. In TR2011 it's a lot like Assassin's Creed where you can see exactly where you need to go next, so it's more of a chore than an accomplishment. Despite the faults TR2011 is still an excellent game. The many cutscenes, the strange island and Lara created an enthralling experience. I could really feel the terror of Lara, trying to get out of this mess, and the awe at all the wonders the mysterious island and its inhabitants had to offer. Tomb Raider did a lot more right than it did wrong.

5 - Rayman Legends - 90%
the first time I played Rayman Origins I immediately fell in love with the game. The visuals look like a cartoon and the gameplay is absolutely flawless oldschool Jump and Run. Rayman Legends adds on that with even more variation in terms of level design and and abilities. The music levels and food levels were really cool. It also gets rid of the worst aspect of Rayman Origins: The relatively bad savepoint system. Rayman Legends saves the game a lot more often, so you don't have do redo as many area when you die. It also makes the game feel a bit shorter, but I'll take that over having to redo so many areas.

4 - Asassin's Creed 4: Black Flag - 90%
In AC3 a new combat system was introduced and the missions relied heavily on that. In AC4 they added on to the navy features introduced in AC3. It was OK in AC3 but I was happy that I didn't have to do it all the time, and prior to playing AC4 I was afraid of having to do too many naval missions. Well, it did have a lot of naval stuff and I was happy about it. Naval gameplay is the best thing that happend to the AC series since AC2. The combat has a much better flow with more types of weapons to fire. The best thing about the game is when you attack other ships and board them or attack forts and then go to them to assassinate the commander. It is action-packed, cinematic and the gameplay feels good. It looks and sounds as if you were in a Pirates of the Carribean movie. The game also introduced an open-world water area that connects all islands. I spent dozens of hours looking for treasures and boarding ships, and there was never a dull moment. The main objectives relied more on stealth, although now there were too many missions when you were just tailing people. The next game should have more types of stealth missions.

3 - Metro: Last Light - 91%
Metro: Last Light is a near perfect first person shooter. It's engine is nearly as good as the engine of Crysis 3, but the game makes up for it with environments that are so detailed, they look like a painting. The atmosphere is rich and captivating and the story interesting enough to make you want to understand it. Something that Bioshock: Infinite, in my opinion, only managed to do in the last hour of playtime. The level design is a step up from Metro: 2033. Stealth is easier, and a bit oversimplified, but it beats the trial and error that flawed the first game. Also the melee enemies no longer seem to jump inside you to attack you, so you no longer lose your focus on them.

2 - Splinter Cell: Blacklist - 92%
I have been a huge stealth fan sind the first Thief game, and I'm currently replaying all of the Thief games in preparation for the next Thief. The Splinter Cell games were a nice addition to the stealth genre. More linear, but also more focused on style and real world problems. A little bit like a spin-off of the series 24, but with more focus on infiltration. The first three games were great, always building on top of what the last game achieved, with better graphics and more options. And then came Double Agent. It wasn't a particularly bad game, but it felt so super slow and boring. Conviction on the other hand was way too fast, focusing too much on taking out enemies in a violent fashion instead of doing it silently or avoiding them alltogether. Blacklist feels like the culmination of all these different playstyles. Yes, it's still much faster than the old games, but the level design is much more open and the tools add a lot more variation. It's really a lot of fun to switch between aggressive and passive stealth gameplay. I wasn't even bothered by the first-person trips. They were very short and promoted stealthy killing as well. The only downside was the initial difficulty. Without a radar it was really hard to avoid confrontations in the first couple of missions. Also it felt like the character was overreacting to my input. One time I was hanging from a ledge while an enemy guard was looking through the window. I pressed only a single button, and Sam Fisher, jumped through the window, took the guard out turned off the lights and closed the door. It took me some time until I had figured out the proper way to control Fisher.

1 - Darksiders - 93%
Darksiders wasn't even closed on my radar until It was very cheap in a Steam Sale. In the beginning you only have your sword and hack through enemies. Then you get to upgrade it, get secondy weapons, get to upgrade those, an inventory for potions, a horse to ride, the ability to fly, create and use teleports like in Portal and so many other things. The boss fights are diverse and fun. The levels are relatively linear and have some backtracking to do, they are big there are plenty of secondary rooms to explore. I have never played any of the Zelda games but I have heard Darksiders is a lot like these games, because it has so many mechanics, and allows the player to set his own pace. The game looks almost exaclty like World of WarCraft, with all its ups and downs. The textures could have used more detail bu the art is well-crafted and every set piece looks cool. I am looking forward to play Darksiders 2 as soon as I can. Hopefully its controls will be a little less overwhelming.

A forum member of SC2Mapster.com asked me a very interesting question and I took the time to go into detail about my feelings about my campaigns, getting a job as a level designer and map making in general. You can follow the discussion here and read my answer here or below.

LotC was my first project and it was mainly built out of the desire to make something playable out of a book I read. It lacked direction. Not only the maps were made up as I went but even smaller objectives were made up on the spot as I was working in the editor. DotD had the same design "philosophy", only on a much bigger scale and with more experience with the editor. TLG was a bit different because of the focus on puzzles, so it was more about trying to explore the possibility of a different genre in an RTS game. On the one hand it helped that half of TLG was finished while working on Settlers 7, on the other hand it was quite stressful to work on two pojects at the same time.

I think if you look closely at the campaigns you will notice that the terraining has gotten better from campaign to campaign (TLG again, is a bit of a different kind because it relies so much on imports).

I actually agree with the average quality of LotC and DotD from a smaller point of view. But if you put all the aspects together: the amount of maps, the objectives, the triggers, the time spent. That is what they want to see. If I recall correctly half of the dudes workign at Blizzard as level designers were WC3 mappers, and they only made a few Tower Defense maps or maybe a campaign (something I read a while back).

In the job interview (fyi: TLG wasn't finished at that point, but I submitted the 3 maps anyway) we never went into the details of any map. they asked me to tell them something about my projects and I told them about my love for WC lore and how I wanted to create something playable out of the books. I told them I am not a good storyteller so I chose an existing source. I told them about the difficulty of trying to create varied gameplay when you mostly control only a single hero. They generally seemed more impressed with my enthusiasm for mapmaking and my will to actually complete large scale projects. (I had to hold myself not to talk too much although I am a very introvert person.) Later I found out they had only played about 1,5 of LotC and didn't like the stealth/fight pace of Map 2 that much. Sometimes it's not so much about quality, but the ability to finish something. Many people get frustrated when their hobby turns into a job and all of a sudden they have to do something daily, without the creative freedom they were used to.

I also believe each level designed is should focus on different strengths from genre to genre. If you have a portfolio consisting of screenshots of 3D maps (UnrealEd etc.) of course the screenshots you present should be as good-looking as possible (your best work only). They should show that you understand texturing, lightning, meshes, object placement etc. I don't think it's that important with 2D games (yes, WC3/SC2 are 2D games from a gameplay perspective). Here it more important that your screenshots convey your gameplay ideas.

As the months went by while working on Settlers 7 my responsibilites shifted more and more from level art to level design. I spent more coming up with gameplay ideas for maps than just building the terrain (which is considered an upgrade. Anyone can make levels look nice with enough time and experience, because it is more craft than art).

This way I learned how important it was to plan ahead, make design documents and paint map layouts. I still suck at map layouting but my terraining has improved a lot. You can see the difference when you look at a Starcraft 2 map (http://outsiderxe.campaigncreations.org/sotx.php). I also understand that I should no longer make up ideas for a map while working on it. A map should consist of one clear idea and it should be followed (or changed if it doesn't work). My first SC2 map (SotX1; you can't download it yet) still suffers from that because it has too many elements (driving vehicles, hunting bosses, etc.). The map spends too much time trying to teach the player how it works. Later maps follow a clear genre (SotX2: Puzzles, SotX3: DotA, SotX4: Tower Defense...). I also learned that it is very important to separate gameplay and art. I commit 100%ly to gameplay and work only with very basic blocking elements until I am finished with the gameplay and all triggers work as intended. Only then I start working on the terrain.

Despite all that I still learn a lot about designing with each map I create. I often look back and tell myself I wish I could have done this or that differently. I could certainly overhaul all the old maps, but I prefer to use my experience on completely new things. The only thing I allow myself to do now is bugfixing. And back in 2002-2005 there were not many good maps anyway, especially not campaigns.

To answer your question if you should expect better design in SotX then in LotC: Terrain art (and possibly cinematics) will certainly be better. The gameplay (fun) is a more complicated matter which I would like to discuss. I already said that I like to try out new things. SotX is going to be a co-op campaign with each level featuring a different gameplay idea. I have no experience in making co-op experiences. I already have to change so many details about the story that I am not sure if it is that good of an idea anymore. The campaign will not feature anymore cinematic-only maps to keep the pace. One player shouldn't wait for another. Co-op gets more complicated because each map is vastly different from one another. I explore a lot of new genres and each time I have to teach the player(s) the gameplay mechanics. In my opinion all of my other campaigns had clear high points in terms of map making, which were usually around the middle of a campaign. The first few maps are more like test-maps, where I try out new mechanics. And the final maps usually show symptoms of being burned out. Often they are overloaded with stuff and not enough time was taken to test if it's actually fun. In SotX each map is like a test-map. I spent a lot more time on each map, often throwing out ideas that don't feel right. Once I have finished the last map I will go back to each of the old ones and apply what I have learned during the time. I don't plan on releasing any maps until I am satisfied. But again, that is no guarantee that you will like it more, it just means games/mods nowadays have become much more complicated to make, and the demand for a polished experience is a lot higher.

I've always been a story-driven mapmaker, so my maps will never be as flashy or feature-loaded as StarCraft Universe, Night of the Living Dead or Hive Keeper. In this day and age story-driven custom maps seem very rare. Most people focus on a single multiplayer map and add as many features as possible. People want to create the next DotA, the next TD, a map that will get them a #1 spot on the Arcade. Maybe it will make them famous, work for Game Newell, or they'll become immortal... I see so many threads here where the first question people ask is "Do you you think people will play it?", and quit if they don't get the desired attention. I'm thankful that I never had to (and never will) ask that question, because I already know the answer.

TLDR:
I agree that my WC3 campaigns are average, but when you look for a job long-term commitment and passion are more important.
My level design and level art skills have improved a lot over the years, especially during my time with Settlers 7.
The improved skills are no guarantee for a better campaign in SotX because I try out things I have no experience in.
I aim for Blizzard-style story maps, not for feature-loaded multiplayer maps.